Published: Sunday, September 27, 2009
GUEST COMMENTARY / HEALTH CARE
Truth about Medicare proposals shouldn’t be scary to seniors
Instead of fearing health-care reform, seniors should embrace it with open arms.
Unfortunately, by mentioning “Medicare cuts” without explaining what the proposed legislation would actually do, recent press summaries might spark a new round of fear.
The truth is none of the reform proposals will cut your Medicare benefits. Rather, to one degree or another, all three proposals (the House, Kennedy and Baucus bills) would cut wasteful, unnecessary subsidies to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Thus, opponents, including some of the very corporations that reap huge profits from these subsidies, want to derail health reform or twist it to their benefit in the negotiations under way in Washington, D.C. Knowing seniors are a powerful voting bloc, they pump millions of dollars into a deception campaign. Some stoop terribly low, robo-calling seniors with false claims that reform will rip away Grandma’s Medicare.
Reform opponents should stop spending precious health dollars on trickery and show some respect for older Americans. Sure, some of us are too young to recall that our beloved Medicare is a public health plan, signed into law in the 1960s as a crown jewel of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But most of us remember the misleading Harry and Louise ads that torpedoed President Bill Clinton’s health reform efforts, and we have witnessed skyrocketing medical costs ever since. And those of us struggling to buy our medications understand all too well that parts of Medicare Part D, President George W. Bush’s prescription drug plan for seniors, are a huge corporate welfare boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies. Seniors lose their homes, and some even die, because they can’t afford to take their medications due to the Medicare Part D “donut hole.”
In reality, every reform bill on the table will enhance the quality of seniors’ lives by eliminating co-pays for preventive care in Medicare and offering immediate prescription drug discounts. The strongest measures will penalize hospitals for discharging patients too early and assure that physicians who take care of Medicare patients are compensated appropriately, with yearly increases to keep up with inflation. Best of all, the dreaded “donut hole” in Medicare Part D will be reduced and eventually eliminated.
The Bush era Medicare Part D legislation also funneled the advantage in the so-called Medicare Advantage Program to insurance companies, not seniors. The 14 percent subsidy that private Medicare Advantage insurers enjoy over the public Medicare program needs to stop. The dollars saved should be used to strengthen Medicare.
The House legislation will take precisely that step. It would also give people too young for Medicare the choice of a quality, affordable public health insurance plan. Low income families and small businesses would receive tax credits to make insurance affordable. A study by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found that such a public plan would reduce costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and reduce premiums by 20 percent on average. And affordability matters, particularly for women, who are more likely than men to delay or avoid needed care because of cost and difficulty finding coverage. Groups representing seniors, business, consumers, labor, doctors, nurses and others support the House legislation.
In contrast, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries favor the bill announced last week by Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Although the Baucus bill would improve Medicare benefits, it would not help younger Americans. In the words of Richard Kirsch, head of Health Care for America Now, the Baucus bill would “give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans — high-deductible insurance — without having to face competition from a public health insurer.” As seasoned nurses, we have seen time and again how these corporations deny care. Why give them a new set of taxpayer subsidies?
As lawmakers craft final legislation, we urge them to replace the Baucus plan with the consumer protections already adopted by three House committees. The only way to guarantee that Americans of all ages have good health insurance they can afford is to offer everybody the choice of a strong national public health insurance option. It is time, once and for all, to enact health reform that puts people before excessive corporate profits.
Becky Gibbons, 61, lives in Everett and has been a registered nurse for over 20 years. She now works as a public-school nurse.
Joan Bethel, 73, a Marysville resident, retired from practical nursing in 1989. She now serves on the Snohomish County Council on Aging and hosts “Focus on Aging,” a monthly radio program on KSER-FM.
Unfortunately, by mentioning “Medicare cuts” without explaining what the proposed legislation would actually do, recent press summaries might spark a new round of fear.
The truth is none of the reform proposals will cut your Medicare benefits. Rather, to one degree or another, all three proposals (the House, Kennedy and Baucus bills) would cut wasteful, unnecessary subsidies to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Thus, opponents, including some of the very corporations that reap huge profits from these subsidies, want to derail health reform or twist it to their benefit in the negotiations under way in Washington, D.C. Knowing seniors are a powerful voting bloc, they pump millions of dollars into a deception campaign. Some stoop terribly low, robo-calling seniors with false claims that reform will rip away Grandma’s Medicare.
Reform opponents should stop spending precious health dollars on trickery and show some respect for older Americans. Sure, some of us are too young to recall that our beloved Medicare is a public health plan, signed into law in the 1960s as a crown jewel of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But most of us remember the misleading Harry and Louise ads that torpedoed President Bill Clinton’s health reform efforts, and we have witnessed skyrocketing medical costs ever since. And those of us struggling to buy our medications understand all too well that parts of Medicare Part D, President George W. Bush’s prescription drug plan for seniors, are a huge corporate welfare boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies. Seniors lose their homes, and some even die, because they can’t afford to take their medications due to the Medicare Part D “donut hole.”
In reality, every reform bill on the table will enhance the quality of seniors’ lives by eliminating co-pays for preventive care in Medicare and offering immediate prescription drug discounts. The strongest measures will penalize hospitals for discharging patients too early and assure that physicians who take care of Medicare patients are compensated appropriately, with yearly increases to keep up with inflation. Best of all, the dreaded “donut hole” in Medicare Part D will be reduced and eventually eliminated.
The Bush era Medicare Part D legislation also funneled the advantage in the so-called Medicare Advantage Program to insurance companies, not seniors. The 14 percent subsidy that private Medicare Advantage insurers enjoy over the public Medicare program needs to stop. The dollars saved should be used to strengthen Medicare.
The House legislation will take precisely that step. It would also give people too young for Medicare the choice of a quality, affordable public health insurance plan. Low income families and small businesses would receive tax credits to make insurance affordable. A study by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found that such a public plan would reduce costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and reduce premiums by 20 percent on average. And affordability matters, particularly for women, who are more likely than men to delay or avoid needed care because of cost and difficulty finding coverage. Groups representing seniors, business, consumers, labor, doctors, nurses and others support the House legislation.
In contrast, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries favor the bill announced last week by Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Although the Baucus bill would improve Medicare benefits, it would not help younger Americans. In the words of Richard Kirsch, head of Health Care for America Now, the Baucus bill would “give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans — high-deductible insurance — without having to face competition from a public health insurer.” As seasoned nurses, we have seen time and again how these corporations deny care. Why give them a new set of taxpayer subsidies?
As lawmakers craft final legislation, we urge them to replace the Baucus plan with the consumer protections already adopted by three House committees. The only way to guarantee that Americans of all ages have good health insurance they can afford is to offer everybody the choice of a strong national public health insurance option. It is time, once and for all, to enact health reform that puts people before excessive corporate profits.
Becky Gibbons, 61, lives in Everett and has been a registered nurse for over 20 years. She now works as a public-school nurse.
Joan Bethel, 73, a Marysville resident, retired from practical nursing in 1989. She now serves on the Snohomish County Council on Aging and hosts “Focus on Aging,” a monthly radio program on KSER-FM.
Comments
(